General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: SinCityVoluntaryist on May 03, 2012, 03:30:55 PM

I've done some studying on anarcho-monarchism, a libertarian/anarchist philosophy that is virtually non-existence in the grand scheme of things. From what I've gathered, anarcho-monarchists support the existence of a market anarchist society, and believe that the private sector can provide goods and services better than the public sector. However, an-mons believe in the existence of a King or leader, but advocate this leader as a voluntary individual whose sole existence is meant to represent a sense of celebration and kinship in the souls of the men. In For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard gives an example of a society like this. If I remember correctly, he uses Scotland as an example. Within the times of old, Scotland was the most advanced society in Europe. Though they had a king, his very existence was meant as a facilitator who would watch over meetings to make sure respect and order was kept in tact. Other than that, he could not make any legal choices whatsoever.

Anarcho-monarchists also believe that societies should include kinship and faith within their inner workings. This had led many to label it a conservative-libertarian anarchist belief.

As a voluntaryist that also supports Ron Paul, I think it would be more accurate to label me an anarcho-monarchist than an-cap. My faith also justifies the label as well.

I'm curious to know if there are any other an-mons here as well. If I'm not mistaken, Rothbardian is one, and there was another person that used the label as well.

I've never heard of Anarcho-Monarchism. Would such a "king" even be necessary in a free society? From your description, this "king" would be a powerless figurehead who represents the culture of the society, but has no purpose otherwise. Would people obey or pay fealty to this king, even in a token manner?

Any relationship with the king would be completely voluntary in nature. If you want to show him monetary support, do so because you want to.

And, yes, your description of the king is correct. If you want a better explanation, think of the king as an ambassador. If new people from another area visit, he could act as a welcoming party and introduce the individuals to the people.

I that case, I don't see how this is fundamentally different from anarcho-capitalism. This is just AnCap with an odd (to me) cultural quirk, there's no reason to come up with another name for it. In fact, if England converted to anarcho-capitalism this is probably what you'd get, since they'd likely keep the royal family just for nostalgia/cultural reasons. Since the "king" is a figurehead, you can have the same thing with any of the other flavors of anarcho-, given that the real economy and government (or lack thereof) adheres to whatever kind of anarchy is described by the name. Coming up with a separate name for it might confuse the issue.

I've never heard of Anarcho-Monarchism. Would such a "king" even be necessary in a free society? From your description, this "king" would be a powerless figurehead who represents the culture of the society, but has no purpose otherwise. Would people obey or pay fealty to this king, even in a token manner?

Not only is AnMon anthropologically (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_(anthropology)) proven, it exists in the real world as expressed by the theocratic Papacy and the former caesaropapist Byzantine Empire. Also, the Spanish State can be interpreted, as defined by their constitution, as a statist attempt to build a psuedo-AnMon community. The Catholic Church (separate from the papal states) is a worldwide AnMonism as is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I that case, I don't see how this is fundamentally different from anarcho-capitalism. This is just AnCap with an odd (to me) cultural quirk, there's no reason to come up with another name for it. In fact, if England converted to anarcho-capitalism this is probably what you'd get, since they'd likely keep the royal family just for nostalgia/cultural reasons. Since the "king" is a figurehead, you can have the same thing with any of the other flavors of anarcho-, given that the real economy and government (or lack thereof) adheres to whatever kind of anarchy is described by the name. Coming up with a separate name for it might confuse the issue.

Read this (http://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,1220.0.html).

Sounds like there's more to it than I thought.But all I really need to know is this:

Can I say "No" to whatever the "monarch" wants without getting my stuff taken or being thrown into a cage?

Sounds like the answer is "yes", so I'm mostly fine with it. I won't be identifying myself as an anarcho-monarchist because I don't fully understand the term.

I originally had a paragraph here about how I'm wary of leaders (even voluntarily followed ones), but I think I'd be preaching to the choir.

Well, the issue with leaders isn't whether they tell you to do things that you don't want tohear, its Whether what they say is ethical and part of the covenant you have made with them. The State does NOT act ethically as each decision comes with the threat of violence and no one anywhere has ever made a covenant with a State unless they have applied for citizenship. A totem monarch, however, could not violate these two requirements easily.

Could someone give me a quick and dirty like 2 paragraph explanation of why this arrangement would be desirable over a ancap society lacking a monarch?

Sorry for the long pause between responses, I work a lot!

Anarcho-capitalism is de facto a form of social organization that is voluntarily segregative rather than coercively integrative. The Anarcho-monarchist is an Ancap, but prefers a voluntary community with an anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic, anti-statist, and anti-corporatist, conservative-libertarian bent that stresses tradition, responsibility, liberty, virtue, localism, market anarchy, voluntary segregation and personalism, along with familial, religious, and regional identity rooted in private property and personified by a totem monarch.

If you can get down with that, then you're in. If not, then *shrug*. Monarchy aint for everyone.

I'd like to start out by saying that the (A) symbol with the top hat and bow tie on the website that BlackandGr9y posted is absolutely adorable.

On Anarcho-Monarchism itself, I have some issues. As for the "right-wing" cultural values (which aren't for everyone), I can see the appeal, but the totem monarch is a mystery to me. Why would such a figurehead be necessary? Couldn't individuals help other individuals, without either party being universally recognized as a voluntary "big man?"

As for a stateless monarch "guiding" the people, that situation would appear to be more of a voluntarily funded state than an anarchistic society (in my opinion, at least). The amount of faith placed in this one person in order to see him/her as the wise final authority would seem to me the same kind of faith placed in democratic governments today as the wise final authorities.

Hopefully I haven't misrepresented An-Mons in any way (I am, after all, no expert in their philosophy). If I have, please feel free to correct my misinterpretations.

If its a voluntary arrangement, it isn't a State. If the voluntarily submitted to authority is not the judicial monpolist, it isn't a State. Ergo, the totem monarch is in complete compliance with AnCap ethical precepts.

Therefore submission to a totem monarch instead of a Republic would merely be a matter of personal preference as though one were choosing between Pepsi and Coke since neither forms of govt would be the supreme judicial monopolist. Remember, AnCap is not "no" legal authorities - it is many legal authorities. The left anarchists are delusional to desire a world in which man is abstractly viewed separated from all external influence. We view man in the practical light of being made unique and supremely sovereign BECAUSE of those external influences and his freedom to choose which to emphasize and when.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers". A monarch is a ruler or he/she is not a monarch. Hence "Anarcho-monarchism" is a contradiction in terms.

It really isn't. I'll quote myself from my intro thread:

Quote

anarcho-monarchism is the idealism of a sovereign individual. It does not necessarily identify one by his economic perspective, as the common man does not identify himself as an economic perspective. A man is who he is b/c of his culture, his personal sociological beliefs, and his economic perspective, but not just his economic perspective.

The purpose, I think, of the hyphenated anarchist descriptor is to identify the individual within the greater anarchist ideal - in that way, I am a monarchist, a voluntary monarchist. I do not subscribe to the morally repugnant belief that all, or even some, men have an equal share of political authority over myself or my property over myself. Property rights are the only axiomatic expression of existence - all other rights extend from them, and they are individually exclusive. If I believe, and I do, that I own myself -that I am sovereign, then no other may own me or hold any sway over me or my person. Therefore, since I premise my entire ethical perspective on axiomatic property rights, democracy is morally repugnant to me.

I adhere first and foremost to liberty - that most sacred of principles - which is most clear expressed and ensured by the existence of property rights.

I am a libertarian anarchist who draws a distinction between equality in political freedoms and liberty in political freedoms. From my perspective, political equality is as total a dictatorial form of gov't under an autocrat as it is under a democrat. Political liberty, however, is never more sweet than under a monarch - of course, ideally that monarch would be the individual himself but, where property over the self was denied in a certain extent, and a State demanded, a monarch suffices. Those who favor libertyshould admit the truth that they cannot favor a single form of political organization at the expense of others; they should not be pledged to any single constitution or form of gov't. The desire to see the maximum amount of liberty for oneself and fellow citizens within reason - regardless of character of gov't - is the mark of libertarianism and the antithesis of totalitarianism

For me, I see political equality as synonymous with political uniformity of opinion - a totality.

Anarchy simply means "no rulers". A monarch is a ruler or he/she is not a monarch. Hence "Anarcho-monarchism" is a contradiction in terms.

It really isn't. I'll quote myself from my intro thread:

Quote

anarcho-monarchism is the idealism of a sovereign individual. It does not necessarily identify one by his economic perspective, as the common man does not identify himself as an economic perspective. A man is who he is b/c of his culture, his personal sociological beliefs, and his economic perspective, but not just his economic perspective.

The purpose, I think, of the hyphenated anarchist descriptor is to identify the individual within the greater anarchist ideal - in that way, I am a monarchist, a voluntary monarchist. I do not subscribe to the morally repugnant belief that all, or even some, men have an equal share of political authority over myself or my property over myself. Property rights are the only axiomatic expression of existence - all other rights extend from them, and they are individually exclusive. If I believe, and I do, that I own myself -that I am sovereign, then no other may own me or hold any sway over me or my person. Therefore, since I premise my entire ethical perspective on axiomatic property rights, democracy is morally repugnant to me.

I adhere first and foremost to liberty - that most sacred of principles - which is most clear expressed and ensured by the existence of property rights.

I am a libertarian anarchist who draws a distinction between equality in political freedoms and liberty in political freedoms. From my perspective, political equality is as total a dictatorial form of gov't under an autocrat as it is under a democrat. Political liberty, however, is never more sweet than under a monarch - of course, ideally that monarch would be the individual himself but, where property over the self was denied in a certain extent, and a State demanded, a monarch suffices. Those who favor libertyshould admit the truth that they cannot favor a single form of political organization at the expense of others; they should not be pledged to any single constitution or form of gov't. The desire to see the maximum amount of liberty for oneself and fellow citizens within reason - regardless of character of gov't - is the mark of libertarianism and the antithesis of totalitarianism

For me, I see political equality as synonymous with political uniformity of opinion - a totality.

I really like the quote "No gods or kings, only men." I usually use the "kings" part to refer to presidents or other autocrats, it rarely gets to be used so literally. So I would have a half fear of this.

But you're right I'd even go to say that *most* societies were anarcho monarchist for a long time. It all came down to one individual wielding a lot of social influence while being unwilling/unable to tread on the "rights" of his people.

Ultimately, I don't like people deferring judgement to other human beings. I think after you absorb anarchism, the next step is a very internal process. *Why* were we so fucked up we let tin pot dictators rule us for thousands of years. There are no magic laws. The only difference between someone wielding a lot of social authority and someone wielding legal authority is that the second person codified his influence. The most influential person in your life should be your teacher, mentor etc. And unless they're committed to pushing paradigm-stuffed envelopes as you are you will surpass them shortly. I fail to see why they or anyone else should deserve some special social role.

I don't understand the need or even the want of a politically powerless but influential person in any kind of faux cultural leadership role. Such positions aren't harmless, especially because people think they are. Read Elsworth Tooey in the Fountainhead.

Ron Paul is a great man. However, unless he's a secret Ancap (I suspect he is) I don't have much to learn from him, even at this stage in my life. At least stuff that pushes envelopes. He's incredibly well-read but I don't need him to learn that stuff.

I do understand what you're getting at more or less but only because I recently read some Ian Banks books. There's a Culture of Anarchists who have a "government". Stay with me here, it works and its basically what you're describing. I'm convinced it only works because said Ambassador/King/Regent is a bunch of supercomputer robots. Read Player of Games or Surface Detail, its the most mature look at a functioning Anarchy that I've ever seen.

Unless his name is Aragorn I'm out. Also im having trouble grapsing what the King would do. I've heard some vague things like "give advice" and "symbolize" (from other sites, started looking into it when i found out Tolkien might be one) and idk why a King is needed for that.